PRIVATE BUSINESS

Committee of Selection
	 — 
	Ordered,

That Gillian Merron and Joan Ryan be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Alan Campbell and Tony Cunningham be added to the Committee.—[Liz Blackman.]

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Chris McCafferty: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that HIV prevention programmes— particularly those that link HIV/AIDS with sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes, services for young people and the empowerment of women—are re-emphasised at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly special session in New York?

PRIME MINISTER

Tony Blair: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been rehearsing those lines all morning. [Interruption.] I think so. I thought that it was a little rehearsed.
	I simply issue an invitation to debate policy. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned two—one on the health service and one on law and order—but he is not really prepared to debate those matters. He is not the first Conservative leader either to call for or predict my departure. There were four others, but I am still here, and they are not.

Barry Sheerman: rose—[Interruption.]

Tony Blair: We actually are doing something about the national health service. I agree that difficult changes are being put in place—[Interruption.]

Tony Blair: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman why the point that he is making is wrong. [Interruption.] He asked me, and I am about to give the answer. The fact is, the people who should be deported are foreign prisoners. In other words, they are foreign and they have been in prison. The point that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made was not that this is about everyone who is convicted of an imprisonable offence, as some of those people may not go to prison, but that everyone who is in prison should be deported. That is why they are called foreign prisoners.

Michael Connarty: When preparing for a speech on workers' memorial day at the memorial in Bathgate, I was shocked to find that in 2004–05, 220 workers died in UK workplaces and that there was a 29 per cent. rise in deaths in Scotland to 36. What will the Prime Minister do to reverse the trend since 1998, as the UK index has risen from 100 to 107? In the same period, the index for workplace injuries has gone down to 82 in the European Union.

Betty Williams: As my right hon. Friend will know, the only way to travel to and from the island of St. Helena is by sea. [Interruption.]

Regulation of Mortgage Repossessions

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Police and Justice Bill

Nick Herbert: As a west Sussex Member, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is our force that will be merged with Surrey and the proposal is deeply unpopular in the county. It is sad that the advice of the police authority—in particular that of the former chief constable of Sussex, who is now the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers—that a federal option should be investigated, was simply not taken. The Government failed even to consider that option properly, even though it was the Prime Minister's preferred route.
	The fifth reason advanced by the Government for rejecting referendums on police mergers is that they know what is best for the people. It is that contempt for public opinion that has led the Government to ignore the people's vote on regional assemblies and proceed by stealth to build regional government in any case. Back in 1996, before the Government came to power, there was a rather different message. The Labour party document on regional government, to which I have already referred, claimed:
	"It is in no-one's interest that we impose unwanted new structures of government on areas of the country that have no great wish to change. We are determined to work in partnership with the people—with their active support and understanding."
	That must be the kind of active support and understanding that the public gave the Labour party in the recent local elections. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) asked the previous Home Secretary if he would accept the verdict of the people of Essex if they voted emphatically for a stand-alone force, he replied:
	"I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer . . . no."—[Official Report, 20 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 5.]
	So that is what new Labour meant by
	"the active support and understanding of the people."
	It meant, "We don't want you to have a say and if, for some reason, you get a say, we'll ignore you."
	I hoped that the new Minister might take a more enlightened view of local or direct democracy, which I know he supports. After all, he co-authored a pamphlet entitled "Power to the People", so let us give the people some real power. Last September, he also co-authored a Fabian Society paper entitled "Why Labour Won". That is now of course of only historical interest to readers. He might be planning a small but significant revision to the title.
	In the pamphlet, the Minister argued for a manifesto to transform the choice and voice of the public in the services for which they pay. I agree with him, but he has fallen at the first fence in his new job by denying local people an important choice over the future of their police forces. Before the local elections and in his previous incarnation under the Deputy Prime Minister—as it were—the new Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made great play of what he called double devolution, in which citizens would have more choice. So where is the citizens' voice in the future shape of their local police force? That is not double devolution: it is doublespeak. Their rhetoric is about localism, community empowerment and the citizen's voice: the reality is a steady accrual of power to Whitehall.
	Successive clauses in the Bill give more power to the Home Secretary and take it from police forces and authorities. This group of amendments also addresses schedule 2 to the Bill, which gives the Home Secretary sweeping new powers to intervene in police forces. ACPO has warned that by enabling the Home Secretary to act independently, the Bill
	"creates a new linear relationship from chief constable at the bottom, to police authority and up to the Secretary of State at the top, replacing the tripartite arrangement that has been in place for many years".

Nick Herbert: I understand, from all the public opinion polls and surveys that have been conducted in Wales and debates in which I have taken part, that there is considerable opposition in Wales to an all-Wales police force. There will be a substantial loss of accountability, because police force headquarters will be a long way from the people of north Wales. That is why there has been such resistance to the proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to listen to the people, and they are telling us that they do not want these amalgamations.
	Ministers claim that the powers in schedule 2 will be used as a last resort. That is what the Minister just told us and the explanatory notes to the Bill set it out in terms. But in Committee the Government refused to put the words on the face of the Bill. When they could offer no convincing reason for not including that uncomplicated safeguard, we became convinced that Ministers have every intention of using the powers more broadly. For that reason, we support amendments Nos. 15 to 18 tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), which will go some way to restoring the balance by requiring that intervention is preceded by a recommendation from the new combined inspectorate, or a request from the police authority. Those are not unnecessary obstacles, as the Minister described them. They are the existing safeguards in legislation against the abuse of power by the Home Secretary and this Bill would remove them.
	The Association of Police Authorities has expressed alarm that the Bill
	"amounts to a fundamental shift of power to the Home Secretary, which undermines the checks and safeguards on which policing is built."
	It warns that that the
	"changes will not only further centralise power . . . but could also exacerbate the disconnection from local communities that restructuring policing into larger units could involve".
	The association's concern might well have increased if it had heard, as I have, a rumour of a new proposal to create a national policing board in the Home Office, to be chaired by the Home Secretary. There is nothing in the Bill about such a board. Nor, to my knowledge, has it been suggested in Parliament. Perhaps the Minister will now confirm whether such a board is planned. If so, it should have been discussed when this Bill was before the House. It is especially relevant to the powers in schedule 2 and the amendments before us, because the concept epitomises the direction of Government policy and the increasingly central direction of policing. We will have half the number of forces, remote from their local communities, with chief constables effectively being appointed by and answering to the Home Secretary. The public simply have not been consulted about a fundamental transfer of power from their communities. That is what our amendment, requiring local referendums on the changes, seeks to address. It is right in principle and it is right because we believe in trusting people. I beg to move amendment No. 82.

Hon. Members: Oh!

John Maples: We have just had a 25-minute debate on community policing in north Wales in the middle of a debate on the reorganisation of police forces across the country—I would like to drag the debate back to that broader subject. I want to speak in support of Amendment No. 82. I am not, in general, in favour of referendums. I take the points that the Minister made and I think that, on the whole, Governments should make those decisions and then be responsible to the House and to the electorate for them. However, in this case there has been so little consultation and consideration of the alternatives that a referendum may be one of the only ways in which we can air matters.
	The former Home Secretary had made up his mind what he wanted to do. The regional agenda was at work and he was not prepared to entertain the concept of the federalisation of forces or of having multi-level, two-tier police forces. I was told that very early on by one of the Ministers concerned—I was told not to bother to write about that. Within days of the so-called consultation period finishing, the Home Office had reduced our options in the west midlands to two—and it made it very clear that it did not like one of them. There has not been a proper consultation.
	On the question of referendums and the Conservatives, when police forces were last reorganised—this is a once in a generation thing and it is important that we get it right, because Governments of different political colours will have to live with the arrangement—there was a royal commission and all the different options were studied. I do not know whether we came to the right conclusion, but nobody could pretend that there was not a full consultation and examination of the alternatives, which there has not been in this case. [Interruption.] I was in favour of a referendum on the European constitution—that is perfectly true. So, in the end, was the Prime Minister.
	I realise that there is a trade-off, which the Home Office is trying to deal with, between the need for high-tech intelligence-led modern policing to deal with the professional criminal gangs, serious crime such as armed robbery, and terrorism, and the need for local community policing, which is what most of our constituents want and feel that they do not get. I can see the argument that, at a big regional level, a West Midlands police force with 15,000 police constables will be able to have dedicated units to deal with drugs, organised crime, armed robbery and terrorism, whereas that cannot be done on an amalgamation basis or by having one police force taking the lead. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a police force such as Warwickshire, with 1,000 policemen, will provide a far greater level of local accountability and community policing that would be the case if it were part of the West Midlands force. I am concerned about that.
	The good thing about the old arrangement was local accountability and community policing in rural areas. The bad thing was the lack of resilience. If a couple of murders occurred in Warwickshire, until they were sorted out, that was the end of about half of the community policing. Under the new arrangements, those good and bad aspects are reversed. The arrangements will be good for serious crime and resilience, but bad for local policing and accountability. We need to consider another way of dealing with the matter.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to address my specific concerns when he sums up. First, the high levels of crime in the conurbation of the west midlands—the Birmingham conurbation—will suck police forces out of rural areas. That seems inevitable. The problems that are faced in the conurbation areas will always result in higher crime rates than in rural areas. I do not see how there will be protection. I would be grateful if he could reassure me about that.
	Secondly, there is the issue of accountability. Warwickshire police force is accountable to one county council, five district councils, five crime and disorder reduction partnerships and five Members of Parliament. If I want to speak to the chief constable, it is very easy, and, to be frank, there are so few of us that he has to take my call, but in the case of the West Midlands police force, there will be about 70 Members of Parliament, about 14,000 policemen and about 32 basic command units. He will be as far from rural Warwickshire, or rural Staffordshire, or rural Shropshire—both in his head and geographically—as it is possible to be. He is going to say, "Gee, they don't have any problems in south Warwickshire. Crime there is half the rate it is in Wolverhampton. I am worrying about Wolverhampton." There must be some accountability in relation to the basic command unit.
	Thirdly, we do not have the ability to manage forces of that size. I know that the Met is held up an example and I think that the police force is quite strong on leadership in some areas, but it is not particularly good on management. It is a feature of the public sector that it does not appreciate or put into operation a distinction between leadership and management. The management of a force of 14,000 policemen and probably 6,000 or 7,000 civilians is a really big task. We have not proved at all that we are up to that. I am concerned that the Government never allowed us to examine the two-tier option. We could have done, because it exists in many other countries. France and the United States are two examples. We could have had a West Midlands police force that dealt with big serious crimes and strategic issues, built in the necessary resilience, and dealt with terrorism, intelligence, and serious and organised crime. We could also have kept a Warwickshire police force, and other county forces, to deal with community policing.
	The police say that there would be a problem of interaction between the two forces. That is true, but that exists at the moment between head office and basic command units. That would be a small price to pay for getting the two objectives that we want. The Government want a high level force to work well, but are sacrificing the value of community policing and community accountability at a lower level. A two-tier force would at least have given us the best of both those worlds and it would have been worth examining the issue of the weaknesses in communication—often clues about big, serious, organised crime are picked up at local levels by community officers. That would have been a smaller price to pay than the one that we are paying in the Government's reorganisation proposals. I bitterly regret that we were never given the opportunity to consult on that. We should have been, because, as I say, we are reorganising the forces for a generation.
	I hope that the Minister can deal with the question of community accountability at a basic command unit level, or some other level that means something—rather than just having a dotted line that involves going along and talking to the district council once every three months. There should be a real obligation to take notice of what locally elected politicians and communities want.
	The resources for community policing in rural areas should be protected from the demands and inevitable predations of policing and crime problems in urban areas. We all pay our taxes. The transition costs in the West Midlands are estimated to be £50 million and the annual savings £30 million. When I wrote to the Minister's predecessor, I was told that part of the police's capital budget for those two years had been set aside to pay for that. I am glad that the money is not coming out of the current budget, because then it would be a long time before we saw the benefit of any savings, but I am concerned that the money is coming out of the capital budget. Will the Minister tell us exactly what that means? Does is mean that the police will not be able buy computers, fingerprint kits and police cars, or whatever else they need to buy out of their capital budgets, or that criminal justice centres will be set back?
	Finally, I would like some reassurance that the police precepts, which tend to be higher in rural than urban areas, will be allowed to find an average level without that being rigged. There will have to be one police precept across the west midlands under the new arrangements. Given that that will benefit rural areas— almost uniquely in the context of anything that the Government have done in that respect for nine years—I suspect that local authority finance will be rigged to take that benefit away so that we will lose grant to make up for the fact that we have had our police precept reduced. I would like some reassurance on that, too.

Owen Paterson: I was pursuing another profession at the time of the miners' strike and I am not qualified to speak about that. However, I am sure that there was collaboration. I am sure also that the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. There has always been collaboration between forces. The issue has been made even more pertinent following the arrival of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said. SOCA is carrying out level 2 strategic work on terrorism, so there is no need to go through this massively expensive and unpopular process of amalgamation. Local policing should be as near as possible to local people.
	As a final crushing comment, Paul West said:
	"This is not some superficial numbers game. The analysis of 4,000, if written by a GCSE statistics student, would have been returned."
	That is the opinion of the professional. I repeat that that is the view of the chief constable of the No. 1 police force in the country. His view on statistics were supported by Tony Lawrance, who is professor of statistics at the university of Warwick. He published a statistically based opinion which completely undermined the HMIC review, which is the only basis for the figure of 4,000.
	I suggest that professors of statistics are not commonly known for colourful or exciting language, but I shall give a flavour of one of Tony Lawrance's comments. He said:
	"This is an almost perfect example of how not to present a graph— no scales on either axis, no data plotted to justify the lines drawn. It is almost impossible to obtain any critical understanding from it, except that it is intended to prove that score for protective capability increases with force size . . . I can see little hard evidence in pages 30 and 31 to justify the figure of 4,000."
	Touching on collaboration, that professor of statistics went on to say:
	"Effectiveness of smaller forces depends on arrangements they have to deal with policing matters which outstretch their resources, by collaboration with adjacent forces. If these are good then they are effective. This would apply to the larger forces and the most serious matters needing massive response."
	That is exactly as was cited.

Owen Paterson: I entirely agree with that. There is no question that the targets will be set by the Home Office; those targets will be set by conurbations that are big centres of population and big crime centres. The current efficient handling of crime matters and policing in areas such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman and myself will definitely be damaged. That is inevitable.
	I return to the professor, whose comments are extremely relevant. Time and again the Government come back to HMIC. They say, "We are only following what HMIC says." It is one man's opinion, which is trashed by Tony Lawrance, a professor of statistics, who has said:
	"It is hard to believe that professional statisticians were heavily involved in planning, analysing and presenting the quantitative information used by the report, or suggesting conclusions to be drawn from it."
	His conclusion is damning. He says:
	"The quality of the statistical information gathered for the HMIC report . . . is questionable. The statistical treatment of the data collected is largely unjustified and appears open to criticism in its combination of scores. The graphical presentation of the data is poor and trend lines could be misleading; The use of computer-produced statistical collaboration is unjustified . . . The conclusions drawn in respect of the 4,000 minimum force size almost totally ignores the variability of protected services performance at each force size, and no evidence is provided that this will be small at the 4,000 level."
	How can the Government base the largest change in policing in 100 years on a report that is utterly flawed in its basic statistics?

Owen Paterson: No, the professor's analysis was purely of the HMIC report. Given that it is constantly thrown at us as the justification for a revolution in British policing, it is pertinent that a politically neutral professor of statistics rubbishes the data. Even though he uses such extraordinarily colourful language, the Government continue to produce that report as evidence.
	Given that basic evidence and given that it is extremely unpopular, the proposal is illegitimate. The Prime Minister said before the Liaison Committee:
	"the reorganisation of local police is something where it really is sensible to listen to local people."
	On 18 January, he said:
	"It is important that we listen to local people, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do so."—[Official Report, 18 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 836.]
	A week later, on 25 January, he said:
	"Obviously, we will listen carefully to what people say.
	Later that day, he said:
	"I entirely accept that some people are in favour of mergers, that some are against them and that some are in between. We will have to take a decision on what is best for local forces, but we will do so listening to what local people say. In the end, surely, what we both want to see is the most effective form of policing."—[Official Report, 25 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1426–29.]
	A comprehensive survey of public opinion has taken place in West Mercia. Not one of the area's 13 Members of Parliament wrote to the police authority to support the regional proposal, including a Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who is now a Government Whip and, lo and behold, the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the Government Chief Whip. None of the county and unitary councils supports the measure, and neither do any of the nine district councils. None of the 108 parish and town councils support it, and neither do the 11 police consultative groups or 15 community groups. They all support the proposal that West Mercia should become a strategic force, achieving that rank using its own resources. In more than 100 public meetings, overwhelming support has been expressed for the proposal that West Mercia handle level 2 crimes.
	In a telephone poll, 94 per cent. of respondents were in favour of West Mercia promoting itself to level 2 within its own boundaries. Similarly, 96 per cent. of written responses supported West Mercia as a level 2 force. Why on earth do the Government think that the proposal, if it is rammed through, will be legitimate? The Minister effectively said that carefully selected Government toadies will have a little debate in a closed Statutory Instrument Committee, to enable the measure to go through.

Owen Paterson: That is a prescient intervention, as I was about to say that policing began as a civic duty in Elizabethan times. Then, as now, jury service was a civic duty and, the citizenry were also the police. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter, because Sir Robert Peel's second principle stated that
	"the ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police . . . actions".
	Sir Robert continued:
	"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public: the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence."
	In 1839, the royal commission on policing recommended that there should be a national police force, but that recommendation was rejected by Parliament, which understood that policing could only work with public support and co-operation.
	Having cited the figures, how can the Minister possibly believe that a new west midlands force will have any support or legitimacy, given the strength of public opinion? On 14 February, the West Mercia police authority unanimously rejected the merger proposal, and it supported my calls for the local referendum that is the subject amendment No. 82. Only yesterday, seven policy authority chairmen from all parties stated that opinion polls show overwhelming public opposition, and pointed out that only two police authorities have volunteered to proceed with mergers. Some of them have initiated legal proceedings to halt the process; West Mercia will pursue the legal avenues against the measure, and it will seek judicial review at every stage. Last night, the chief constable appeared on "HARDtalk", and gave a robust defence in the face of probing questions from Stephen Sackur.

Stewart Jackson: This important issue has not received the airtime that it deserves. I shall confine my contribution to police structures. The Bill generally is a missed opportunity and will do nothing to tackle the underlying issue—the scourge of crime and disorder. The Prime Minister, we are told, is always looking for actions that will be his legacy. In the wake of the removal of the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) from the post of Home Secretary, one could have been to listen to the massive opposition of people throughout the country to these ill thought-out proposals and to tackle the last bastion of restrictive practices, sclerotic working practices, bureaucracy, inefficiency and buck-passing. I am not speaking about ordinary policemen and women.
	Under the Bill, we are moving, although the Government would no doubt deny it, towards a national police force, entrenching central control by the Home Secretary and the Home Office and reducing local accountability, not least by changing the role and responsibilities of members of police authorities. Some of the proposals in the Bill begin to infringe on operational police matters.
	Through the Bill, we are embedding the general concept that senior police officers should be accountable upwards from their local area to the Home Office, not accountable downwards to residents, taxpayers, or even Members of Parliament and local elected councillors. We have strategic plans, police performance assessments, national policing plans, frameworks, the national policing improvement agency and so on. They are all part of a centralised, top-down, tick-box culture. The views of long-suffering residents are largely irrelevant. More importantly, the proposed reforms will have no discernible effect on the reduction of crime.
	Nothing so perfectly sums that up than the obdurate disdain for the views of local people that we have seen from the Government over the past six months. In the teeth of opposition from hon. Members in all parts of the House, not least hon. Members from north Wales and other Labour Members, the forced police amalgamation plans are unwanted and unworkable and are being foisted on local authorities by the departed right hon. Member for Norwich, South.
	I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire and Suffolk police authorities for refusing to be bullied into a so-called voluntary amalgamation. I commend to the House the views of Councillor Ian Bates, the leader of Huntingdonshire district council in Cambridgeshire, who challenged the Home Office unilaterally to submit its proposals for Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk to a plebiscite of local people, to gauge whether the Government have a mandate to wreck the police service in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk. Like the councillor, I believe that the Government's plans are hasty, intellectually incoherent, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, and flawed.
	Councillor Bates asked some pertinent questions of the Home Office, which bear repetition. He pointed out that the amalgamations will detract from the ongoing operational improvements that we have seen in Cambridgeshire, such as Operation Harrier, a major drugs operation in Peterborough three years ago. The amalgamations will have a major impact on operational and financial risk. They will undermine the concept of neighbourhood policing. It is interesting that the Minister fought his own successful by-election campaign in Hodge Hill on neighbourhood policing and other policing issues, yet there is a dichotomy between neighbourhood policing and the drive towards regional government and regional policing, which he must know is motivating many of his hon. Friends to oppose the proposals.
	As I said earlier, morale is a major issue. Cambridgeshire could be construed as a failing authority, but we are through the worst, things are improving and the force has the strong leadership of Chief Constable Julie Spence. Yet all the senior officers in the three counties are now engaged in a game of musical chairs to try and get the best position. They are, therefore, focusing not on crime, but on new badges, new management suites, new structures and new buildings.
	Questions remain. Will the Home Office meet all the net costs associated with mergers? I listened to the Minister but I remain unconvinced by the damascene conversion. What will the impact be on my constituents' council tax bills? Will democratic and lay justice representation be the same in Cambridgeshire as in Norfolk and Suffolk, under the proposals? Will the Home Office grant remain the same to fund more police, community support officers and other specialist police operational needs, in 2007 and in 2008?We know that the Government are obsessed with change, reform and altering structures. There will inevitably be consultancy costs for the amalgamations and reorganisations. Who will pay them? I do not want the taxpayers in the Peterborough constituency to pay for the Government's administrative folly.
	I fear that the Bill focuses on structures and ignores people's everyday experience of crime and disorder. Last week I visited South Bretton, part of the Peterborough Development Corporation development in the west of my constituency, where residents were plagued by youth crime and appalling antisocial behaviour. They were miserable about that and about the response from the police. I am taking the matter up with the chief constable. One lady who works on the night shift in a local factory told me in tears that she fears coming home from her shift. She knows she will not sleep because she is worried about criminal damage, harassment and youth crime. Is that any way to live?
	What will be the outcome of the amalgamations? Will decent tax-paying people see a reduction in crime? Yes, we have action areas, a prolific and priority offender strategy, a joint working party locally, a safer schools partnership and a local respect action plan, and goodness me, there is a respect academy in the pipeline.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for his warm words of congratulation and I sincerely look forward to debating many issues with him.
	The hon. Gentleman ranged widely beyond the Bill, as is his right, to the subject of amalgamations, as did the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Colchester (Bob Russell), along with my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), in whose Disney epic I look forward to appearing.
	Amalgamation is not the subject of the Bill, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I confine my remarks on the matter to only two points. First, there is a balance to be struck between accountability and effectiveness. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon put his finger on the nature of that balance. The Government are not the first Administration to be worried about the current structure of police forces. I recently read a Government report that was written not too long ago and stated:
	"This pattern"—
	of 43 forces—
	"is partly the result of historical accident and the merging of organisations which were established haphazardly over more than 100 years . . . The result today is a patchwork quilt of forces of widely varying sizes and types."
	It continued:
	"The Government considers that for all these reasons it may be desirable in the long term to reduce the number of police forces."
	That is taken from the police reform White Paper of June 1993.
	Governments of all persuasions have therefore realised for some time that effectiveness must be tackled. When Her Majesty's chief inspector puts the question in such stark terms, surely it is right for the Government to respond.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but that is a completely different discussion.
	It is clear that it might sometimes be necessary to release someone on bail while the decision is being taken on whether they breached the conditional caution. In fact, that might be a more proportionate measure than detention in custody. It is also clear that if investigations into the suspected breach have not been concluded within 12 hours—the time limit for detention—it might be necessary to release the person on bail, to ensure their attendance at a police station for further questioning at a later date. The last amendment in the group would retain the power to release on bail in such circumstances.
	We are concerned about the training provided for constables who administer summary justice. If the police are to be able to impose punishments, they need a particular level of training. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 would require constables to have appropriate training before they imposed bail conditions, to ensure that the suspect did not commit an offence on bail, interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. All constables would be able to impose such conditions as they considered necessary to ensure that the suspect surrendered to custody.
	The granting of bail in a police station is the responsibility of the custody sergeant, who is a figure independent of the investigation; it is not the arresting officer—the policeman on the beat—who imposes bail. A custody sergeant has specialist training and expertise in order to perform a semi-judicial role in deciding whether bail conditions are justified. We want such training to be transferred across to those who will administer conditions. Clearly, the custody officer will not be present when street bail is given. Instead, the officer responsible for deciding on the conditions to be imposed will be the investigating officer, who is not impartial and would not have the training and experience of a custody officer.
	The proposal that would require constables to make decisions about conditions needed to ensure that a suspect did not offend when on bail is not viable either. A decision involving street bail places on the arresting constable the responsibility of achieving a balance between the aims of the conditions of bail and the rights of the suspect. The constable would also have to make judgments about the suspect's likely future behaviour. That is a very grey area. We believe that constables should have the requisite training and expertise before they can impose conditions on street bail for purposes broader than ensuring attendance at a police station.
	In Committee, the previous Minister accepted those arguments and said:
	"Of course, we will expect officers exercising such powers to be properly trained. We expect that with any powers that the police are given. They have extensive training, and we will expect them to be properly trained in those powers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 March 2006; c. 134–5.]
	In light of that statement, we can see no reason why the Government should reject the proposal to include the requirements in the amendments in the Bill. We could then write the expectations of the previous Minister in Committee, and our proposals today, into the legislation.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Protection of children: prohibition of police and conditional cautions

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Encrypted data and indecent photographs of a child—
	'(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 53 (failure to comply with a notice)—
	(a) after subsection (5A)(a) there is inserted—
	"(aa) in a case to which subsection (6) applies, seven years;"
	(b) after subsection (5B) there is inserted—
	"(6) This subsection applies where—
	(a) a person has been previously convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) or section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33); or
	(b) the apparatus or data storage device containing the protected information contains an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
	(c) the apparatus or data storage device containing the protected information has come into the possession of any person together with other apparatus or a data storage device which contains an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
	(d) the court is satisfied that the protected information is likely to contain an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child.
	(7) Subsection (b) will not apply where the person to whom the notice is given can show that the protected information does not contain an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child.
	(8) In this section 'indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child' shall have the same meaning as that set out in the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37)".
	(3) After paragraph 36 of Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there is inserted—
	"36A An offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) if subsection (6) of that section applies."'.
	New clause 3—Extension of offences requiring notification—
	'After paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there shall be inserted—
	"29A An offence under sections 48 to 50 of this Act (abuse of children through prostitution and pornography) where the offender—
	(a) was 18 or over, or
	(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offences for a term of at least 12 months".'.
	New clause 9—Police powers of entry and examination of relevant offender's home address—
	After section 88 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there is inserted—
	"88A Police powers of entry and examination of relevant offender's home address for confirmation of residency and risk assessment
	(1) Upon application by a constable of a relevant force a justice of the peace may grant a warrant authorising him to enter premises named on the warrant if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied and that it is necessary for a warrant to be issued.
	(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are—
	(a) that it is necessary to enter the premises named on the warrant to confirm the residency and risk assessment of the relevant person;
	(b) that it would assist the carrying out of the purpose of confirmation of residency and risk assessment, for a constable of the relevant force to examine and search the premises and the things in them; and
	(c) that on more than one occasion a constable of the relevant force has attempted to examine and search the premises and the things in them for the purpose of ascertaining residency and risk assessing the offender and has been unable (whether by not being able to search and examine the premises and the things in them, or by not being able to obtain entry to the premises) to do so.
	(3) Section 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) applies to warrants issued under subsections (1) above as though it were a search warrant issued under that Act.
	(4) The power to issue a warrant conferred by this section is in addition to any such power otherwise conferred.
	(5) This section does not prejudice any other power of entry, examination, search or seizure.
	(6) In this section—
	'premises' means an address whose address has been notified by a relevant offender under sections 83 to 85 of this Act.
	'the relevant force' means the police force maintained for the area in which the premises are situated." '.
	New clause 10—Duty on sexual or violent offender to co-operate—
	After section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) insert—
	"67A Duty on offender to co-operate
	(1) A relevant sexual or violent offender shall co-operate with any reasonable steps requested of him by the responsible authority.
	(2) 'Reasonable steps' shall:
	(a) include, but not be restricted to, providing access to his home address during a reasonable time of day to facilitate a risk assessment by the responsible authority; and
	(b) be restricted to steps necessary for them to discharge their responsibility under section 67 of this Act to assess the risk posed by the offender.
	(3) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a reasonable step requested by him under subsection (1) of this section shall be liable upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
	(4) In this section—
	'relevant sexual or violent offender' has the meaning given by section 68;
	'responsible authority' shall have the meaning given by section 67;
	'home address' shall have the meaning given by section 83(7) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)." '.
	No. 42, in title, line 8, after 'children', insert
	'and offences relating to child pornography.'.

Joan Walley: In welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post, I should like to draw his attention to a loophole in the existing legislation. Individuals on the sex offenders register can be elected as local councillors. They are not covered by guidance from the standards commission, as they were included on the sex offenders register before it was introduced. If we expect local councillors to have close links with local schools and vulnerable people there ought to be a means whereby their inclusion on the register is considered in risk assessment by local authorities and the police.
	In the past 12 months and over a longer period, I have gone round the houses raising the issue with the Standards Board for England, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office. I raised it with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), who was then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, during the passage of earlier legislation in the House, and I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter in January. I asked the Home Office
	"whether the proposals to develop a new vetting and barring scheme will include provisions to bar those on the sex offenders register from holding office . . . as a local councillor and . . . on a police authority".—[Official Report, 3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 1630W.]
	I was told that that was a matter for the Education Secretary and that responsibilities for vetting procedures for the police lie with the Home Office and those for local councillors with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Having gone round the houses, there is still a flaw or loophole in the legislation. My constituents are very concerned indeed that a local councillor in a position of authority may have to deal with residents' worries about people on the sex offenders register, so I urge the Minister to consider whether that loophole should be allowed to exist.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The cases that I was citing are cases in which, I fear, the person concerned has gone on to commit a multiplicity of offences, but there is no evidence that he has been committing offences for some time. In some cases the alleged offender is very old.
	Difficult issues are involved.I have anxieties about the principle of cautions being used in serious offences. It cuts both ways. If the offence is very serious, people may end up accepting cautions when they ought to be pleading not guilty to the offence. That is a form of plea bargaining, and we know—we will come to it in the next group of amendments—that there may be a massive disparity between the sentence that a person may attract if they are convicted in court, and the relatively lenient sentence that may be visited on them if they accept their guilt previously.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Designation of Part 2 Territories: omission of United States of America

David Heath: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and that he and his colleagues acted in good faith; I simply say that they were mistaken.
	I want to deal first with the lack of ratification on the part of the United States Congress. I find it quite astonishing that this treaty, which we have signed with those who are supposed to be our closest allies, is apparently of so little import in the US legislature. It is far from being a priority for Congress, which has found opportunities to ratify extradition treaties with Lithuania, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Peru, but, apparently, cannot find an opportunity to give proper consideration to reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom. That says a lot for the supposedly special relationship that we enjoy with our friends in the United States.
	That would be cause for concern in itself, were it not for the extraordinarily asymmetric position of the treaty that the Government entered into. As I said in the Committee on the statutory instrument, even a Government acting under duress could not have signed a treaty that so badly sold short the interests of the citizens of this country, in comparison with those of another. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), says from a sedentary position that my observation is nonsense, but he or his hon. Friends will have to demonstrate why. This is clearly an entirely one-sided treaty. In fact, the then Minister—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he can explain to me, from the Dispatch Box, why my argument is nonsense. He has only just been reshuffled, yet he wants to interfere.
	In saying "Nonsense" from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman is asking the House to consider that the Minister then involved, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is now a Health Minister, was mistaken in saying that the treaty was asymmetric. She said:
	"In contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States, we will need to submit sufficient evidence to establish 'probable cause'. That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that. Under the terms of its constitution the USA cannot set its evidential standard any lower than 'probable cause'."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 December 2003; c. 7.]
	So on that day, the hon. Lady made no secret of the fact that there was an imbalance in the treaty, yet the hon. Gentleman says that that view is nonsense. The House will come to its own conclusions. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has arrived—she no doubt remembers the occasion when we last discussed this issue and what was said then.
	All manner of changes were implicit in the proposal that was before us. First, the treaty changed the basis on which extradition could take place. A certain level of evidence used to be required, and there was a list of extraditable offences. However, the treaty removed that list and we now have simply a sentence threshold of 12 months. Any offence that attracts a sentence of more than 12 months becomes an extraditable offence. The House will immediately draw from that the conclusion that it is now open to any of the legislatures in the US to make any offence that it deems to require a sentence of more than 12 months an extraditable offence. That is my second point.
	When we talk about the US, we are not talking about a relationship between our jurisdiction and their jurisdiction. We have two separate jurisdictions, but they have 51, including not only the federal jurisdiction, but the jurisdiction of 50 states, from Alabama to Wyoming, with vastly different concepts of jurisprudence and legal systems. To be frank, we also have vastly different levels of confidence in the ability of those various legislatures to carry out a trial in the way in which we would expect. Not only do we have an asymmetric view, but we have a treaty that applies to 51 different jurisdictions and we have no control over what they might determine to be an extraditable offence.
	The defence that the Minister gave at the time was that we also have reciprocal extradition arrangements with other countries, and she mentioned other European countries and what could be termed the "Anglo-Saxon" jurisdictions of Canada, New Zealand and Australia. But those systems are very much more similar to ours than are the American systems, so those comparisons are of no particular value. The US is a one-off in such terms.
	The next point is that the provisions were retrospective. Article 22.1 states:
	"This Treaty shall apply to offenses committed before as well as after the date it enters into force."
	Not only have we a prospective asymmetric arrangement with the US, but we will allow them to extradite British citizens for offences that took place before the treaty was even signed, let alone ratified—which looks unlikely to happen in the near future.
	On all those grounds, we have legitimate reasons for concern. However, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made another important point about the extraterritorial jurisdiction claimed by the US and by its states. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who attended the Committee, recalled the old joke that if one flies in a plane above the state of New York on one's way to California, the state of New York assumes a territorial jurisdiction on anything one may do. That is not far from the truth, and as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is a real concern when it comes to email traffic.
	We also have legitimate concerns when we see prospective extraditions for commercial crime against people operating in British companies that have connections with American companies, but whose activities are solely based in this country and who have never been to the great state of Delaware or Idaho, or wherever the American parent company may be based. Those people may be extraditable for matters that are not even offences in this country and were carried out in this country, not the US. They can be extradited and held in custody before trial in the US in a state in which they have never previously set foot. That is an extraordinary position to adopt.
	Another problem is that the level of evidence required does not go much beyond simple identification. The subject arouses much concern in this country, but the American investigatory bodies are not entirely foolproof in that regard. The House may recall a case that was current when we considered the Bill in Committee. It involved a Mr. Bond, arrested in South Africa at the request of FBI officials on the basis that he was really a Mr. Derek Sykes, who had defrauded many people out of millions of dollars. However, he really was Mr. Bond, a retired charity worker who worked in the Rotary club in Clifton in Bristol. He was nothing to do with the US, but he was imprisoned in South Africa on the basis of an identification by the FBI. Had he been in this country, he could have been extradited to stand trial for an offence and in a country of which he knew nothing, and on the basis that he was someone that he was not.
	That is not proper protection for people in this country. If we were sensible, we would say to the US Government, "Look, given that you haven't ratified the treaty, we must look again at its terms. This time, we shall protect the interests of British citizens and apply the sort of tests that American Congressmen apply as a matter of course, even if they are not part of the provisions of the constitution." The minimum American requirement of probable cause is not so very different from our requirement of prima facie evidence, but we have thrown away all that protection for British citizens because it seemed a good idea at the time. The aim was to please an American Administration who have not yet been prepared to put the treaty through the American legislature.
	The Government are in a shameful position, and we were right to reject the proposal when it first came before us. We are right to support the new clause, which would bring an end to an asymmetric arrangement of no benefit to the UK.

Dominic Grieve: Although I warmly welcome the Minister's arrival at the Dispatch Box, I cannot welcome her words this afternoon. She has failed completely to meet the issues that have been raised. She suggested that asking judges to consider the question of forum is in some way wrong. Judges deal with abuse of process applications frequently. It is perfectly within their competence to do so. I find incomprehensible her misunderstanding of the issues concerning the United States, our friend and ally. If we want to maintain friendship and alliance, reciprocity is the basis.
	It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [6 March].

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 53, line 12, leave out
	'by a scheme under section 19 of'
	and insert
	'under an amalgamation scheme under'.
	No. 50, in page 56, line 21, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert
	'appropriate authority (see sub-paragraph (3A))'.
	No. 51, in page 57, line 3, at end insert—
	'(3A) Power of the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (1)—
	(a) so far as it is power to make provision falling within sub-paragraph (3B), is power of the Scottish Ministers, and
	(b) so far as it is power to make provision not falling within sub-paragraph (3B), is power of the Secretary of State.
	(3B) The provision falling within this sub-paragraph is provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were included in an Act of that Parliament.
	(3C) Power of the Scottish Ministers under sub-paragraph (1) is exercisable only with the consent of the Secretary of State.
	(3D) Power of the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) and (c), so far as it is power to make provision falling within sub-paragraph (3E), is exercisable only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
	(3E) The provision falling within this sub-paragraph is provision—
	(a) that affects, or may affect, any of the persons mentioned in paragraph 4(2) (police forces, and other policing bodies, in Scotland), or
	(b) that affects, or may affect, the rights and powers of the Scottish Ministers.
	(3F) Power of the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1)(d), so far as it is power to impose obligations on any of the persons mentioned in paragraph 4(2), is exercisable only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.'.
	No. 52, in page 57, line 12, at end insert—
	'(4A) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (1), the Scottish Ministers must consult—
	(a) the Agency,
	(b) the Scottish Police Services Authority,
	(c) persons whom the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of chief constables of police forces in Scotland, and
	(d) persons whom the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of bodies within sub-paragraph (4C).
	(4B) Before deciding whether to give consent for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3D) or (3F), the Scottish Ministers must consult—
	(a) the Scottish Police Services Authority,
	(b) persons whom the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of chief constables of police forces in Scotland, and
	(c) persons whom the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of bodies within sub-paragraph (4C).
	(4C) A body is within this sub-paragraph if it is—
	(a) the police authority for a police area in Scotland that is not combined, by virtue of an amalgamation scheme under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c.77), with any other police area in Scotland, or
	(b) a joint police board constituted under such a scheme.'.
	No. 53, in page 57, line 21, after 'including' insert
	', without prejudice to the generality of section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30),'.
	No. 119, in page 61, line 18, at end insert—
	'67A In section 90(4) (impersonation etc: interpretation), for the words after paragraph (a) and before paragraph (b) (paragraph (aa) having been superseded by section 68(2) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003) there is substituted—
	"(ab) "member of a police force" includes a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is a constable, and".
	67B (1) Section 91 (offence of causing disaffection amongst members of police forces etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) (offence under subsection (1) of causing disaffection etc amongst members of police forces applies also in relation to certain other police personnel), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
	"(aa) members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who are constables,".
	(3) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(3) Liability under subsection (1) for any behaviour in relation to members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency is in addition to any civil liability for that behaviour.".'.
	No. 120, in page 63, line 2, leave out
	'In section 29(3)(c) of the Police Reform Act 2002'
	and insert—
	'The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
	In section 9(3) (persons ineligible for membership of the Independent Police Complaints Commission), after paragraph (da) there is inserted—
	"(db) he is or has been—
	(i) the chairman or chief executive of, or
	(ii) another member of, or
	(iii) another member of the staff of,
	the National Policing Improvement Agency;".
	76A (1) Section 10 (general functions of the Independent Police Complaints Commission) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) (general functions), after paragraph (g) there is inserted "; and
	(h) to carry out functions in relation to the National Policing Improvement Agency which correspond to those conferred on the Commission in relation to police forces by paragraph (e) of this subsection."
	(3) In subsection (3) (functions conferred by other provisions), after paragraph (ba) there is inserted—
	"(bb) any agreement under section 26B of this Act (National Policing Improvement Agency);".
	(4) In subsection (7)(c) (Commission may impose charges for making recommendations, and giving advice, for purposes of subsection (1)(g)), after "subsection (1)(g)" there is inserted "or (h)".
	76B (1) Section 11 (reports) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (6) (persons to whom Independent Police Complaints Commission must send copies of its annual reports), after paragraph (d) there is inserted "; and
	(e) to the National Policing Improvement Agency."
	(3) After subsection (9) there is inserted—
	"(9A) Where a report under subsection (3) relates to the National Policing Improvement Agency, the Commission shall send a copy of that report to the Agency."
	(4) In subsection (10) (persons to whom reports under subsection (4) must be sent), after paragraph (g) there is inserted "; and
	(h) the National Policing Improvement Agency."
	76C (1) Section 15 (general duties of police authorities etc in relation to Part 2 of the Act) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1A) there is inserted—
	"(1B) It shall be the duty of the National Policing Improvement Agency to ensure that it is kept informed, in relation to the Agency, about all matters falling within subsection (2)."
	(3) For the second sentence of subsection (8) (meaning of "third force" in subsection (8)) there is substituted—
	"(8A) Where the person who requires assistance and co-operation under subsection (5) is a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency—
	(a) the chief officer of a third force, or
	(b) the police authority maintaining a third force,
	may be required to give that assistance and co-operation only with the approval of the chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency.
	(8B) In subsections (8) and (8A) "third force", in relation to an investigation, means any police force other than the force to which the person whose conduct is under investigation belonged at the time of the conduct."
	(4) In subsection (9) (approval that is needed before Director General of Serious Organised Crime Agency can be required to give assistance etc under subsection (5)), for the words after paragraph (b) there is substituted—
	"the Agency may be required to give assistance and co-operation under subsection (5) only with the approval of the relevant directing officer."
	(5) After subsection (9) there is inserted—
	"(10) In subsection (9) "the relevant directing officer"—
	(a) in a case where the person who requires assistance and co-operation belongs to a police force, means the chief officer of that force; and
	(b) in a case where the person who requires assistance and co-operation is a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency, means the chief executive of that Agency."
	76D After section 16 there is inserted—
	"16A Investigations: National Policing Improvement Agency involvement
	(1) Where a police authority or chief officer requires the NPIA and its chief executive to provide a member of the NPIA's staff who is a constable for appointment under paragraph 16, 17 or 18 of Schedule 3, it shall be the duty of the NPIA and its chief executive to comply with the requirement.
	(2) It shall be the duty of the NPIA and its chief executive to ensure that a person appointed under paragraph 16, 17 or 18 of Schedule 3 to carry out an investigation is given all such assistance and co-operation in the carrying-out of that investigation as that person may reasonably require.
	(3) It shall be the duty of the NPIA and its chief executive to provide the Commission and every member of the Commission's staff with all such assistance as the Commission or that member of staff may reasonably require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying-out of any investigation by the Commission under this Part.
	(4) Where the person who requires assistance and co-operation under subsection (2) is a person serving with the police, the NPIA and its chief executive may be required to give that assistance and co-operation only with the approval of the chief officer of the force to which that person belongs.
	(5) Where the person who requires assistance and co-operation under subsection (2) is a member of the staff of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the NPIA and its chief executive may be required to give that assistance and co-operation only with the approval of the Director General of the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
	(6) Subsection (7) applies where the NPIA and its chief executive comply with a requirement under subsection (1) or (2) that is made in connection with—
	(a) an investigation relating to the conduct of a person who, at the time of the conduct, was a member of a police force; or
	(b) an investigation of a DSI matter in relation to which the relevant officer was, at the time of the death or serious injury, a member of a police force.
	(7) The police authority maintaining the police force mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b) shall pay to the NPIA such contribution (if any) towards the costs of compliance with the requirement—
	(a) as may be agreed between them; or
	(b) in the absence of an agreement, as may be determined in accordance with any arrangements which—
	(i) have been agreed to by police authorities generally and by the NPIA, and
	(ii) are for the time being in force with respect to the making of contributions towards the costs of compliance by the NPIA and its chief executive with requirements of the kind mentioned in subsection (6); or
	(c) in the absence of any such arrangements, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
	(8) Where the NPIA and its chief executive comply with a requirement under subsection (3), the Commission shall pay to the NPIA such contribution (if any) towards the costs of compliance with the requirement—
	(a) as may be agreed between the Commission and the NPIA; or
	(b) in the absence of an agreement, as may be determined in accordance with any arrangements which—
	(i) have been agreed to by the Agency and by the Commission, and
	(ii) are for the time being in force with respect to the making of contributions towards the costs of compliance by the NPIA and its chief executive with requirements under subsection (3); or
	(c) in the absence of any such arrangements, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
	(9) In this section "the NPIA" means the National Policing Improvement Agency."
	76E In section 17 (provision of information to the Independent Police Complaints Commission), after subsection (5) there is inserted—
	"(6) In this section—
	"chief officer" includes the chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency;
	"police authority" includes the National Policing Improvement Agency."
	76F After section 26A insert—
	"26B National Policing Improvement Agency
	(1) The Commission and the National Policing Improvement Agency must enter into an agreement for the establishment in relation to members of the Agency's staff of procedures corresponding or similar to those provided for by or under this Part.
	(2) An agreement under this section—
	(a) must not be made or varied except with the approval of the Secretary of State; and
	(b) must not be terminated unless—
	(i) it is replaced by another such agreement, and
	(ii) the Secretary of State approves.
	(3) An agreement under this section may contain provision for enabling the Commission to bring and conduct, or otherwise participate or intervene in, any proceedings which are identified by the agreement as disciplinary hearings in relation to members of the Agency's staff.
	(4) An agreement under this section must not confer any function on the Commission in relation to so much of any complaint or conduct matter as relates to the direction and control of the Agency by the Agency's chief executive or by other members of the Agency.
	(5) Procedures established in accordance with an agreement under this section shall have no effect in relation to anything done outside England and Wales by any member of the Agency's staff."
	76G In section 29(3)(c)'.
	No. 121, in page 63, line 4, at end insert—
	'76H (1) Schedule 3 (handling of complaints and conduct matters etc.) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 16(3) (investigations by the appropriate authority on its own behalf: appointment of person to conduct investigation), after paragraph (b) there is inserted "or
	(c) a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is a constable,".
	(3) In paragraph 17(2) (investigations supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission: appointment of person to conduct investigation), after paragraph (b) there is inserted "or
	(c) a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is a constable,".
	(4) In paragraph 17(4) (power of Commission to require different person to be selected to conduct investigation), for "or (b)" there is substituted ", (b) or (c)".'.—[Mr Byrne.]

Amendments made: No. 122, in page 151, line 14, column 2, at beginning insert—
	'In section 10(1), the word "and" preceding paragraph (g).
	In section 11—(a) in subsection (6), the word "and" preceding paragraph (d);(b) in subsection (10), the word "and" preceding paragraph (g).'.
	No. 75, in page 151, line 27, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 'Local Government Act 1972 (c.70) Section 107(6).'. 
		
	
	No. 76, in page 152, line 10, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 'Section 40(7).'.  
		
	
	No. 77, in page 152, line 38, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 'Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) In section 114(2), ", 6A(1)".'. 
		
	
	No. 78, in page 155, leave out lines 30 to 35.
	No. 79, in page 155, leave out line 42.—[Mr. Byrne.]
	Title

Conventions (Joint Committee)

Richard Shepherd: I am very interested in the motion, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not rise to say something about it. There are certain assumptions that I find puzzling—one is to try to reform the conventions between the two Houses of Parliament, without knowing what the shape, form, powers or responsibilities of the House of Lords will be. At the moment it is at a discount, because it is accountable to no one. If the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, which I understand are under discussion, suggest that it should be legitimised by being accountable to the electorate, the question of its being a subordinate House does not necessarily arise. It will be what it was historically: co-equal—the two parts of Parliament. I just make that point because it is very important. We are now trying to reform our constitution in the absence of any knowledge of what the House of Lords will be after the deliberations between the major parties. That is the first thing.
	The second thing is that the motion—I recognise that it comes from the House of Lords—states:
	"the Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords does not vote against measures included in the governing party's Manifesto."
	Every hon. Member who has heard the doctrine of the manifesto and served in the House for a long time knows indeed that it is a very thin concept for a variety of reasons, one of which is the nature of party manifestos. I must confess—it often shocks people—that, until the last election, I had never read my own party's manifesto from beginning to end, and I will give the House an indication of why.
	I travelled the Library for a few minutes to look at some of the past manifestos. In 1997, my party's manifesto, under the glorious title of "You can be sure"—or something—was 56 pages long. The Labour party was more realistic; it recognised that, in fact, the electorate would probably grasp only five concepts, so it issued a pledge card. "Make the Difference" was the Liberal Democrats' manifesto—63 pages. By 2001, we had learned something. "Time for Common Sense" was the Conservative manifesto—46 pages. I could not find the Labour manifesto for that election, but I looked at "Ambitions for Wales" and I take it that it was identical, because the Scottish one was "Ambitions for Scotland", and I guess that there was an "Ambitions for England". That was 44 pages.
	By 2005, the Conservatives got down to "It's Time For Action"—28 pages. The Labour party had made great advance with "Britain forward not back", which it published as a paperback, retailing at £2.50. I cannot imagine the warehouses filled with that important document.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to "Britain forward not back"—112 pages, and it is a right riveting read, I can assure the House, but does he accept that length does not necessary imply detail? Even a manifesto of that length will include something like:
	"We will ensure that councils are organised in the most effective way . . . to deliver high-quality services."
	I support that, but what would a breach of that mean if the House of Lords rejected some local government legislation in a future Parliament? That is very difficult to establish.

Jack Straw: It is a great pleasure to speak to the motion, which I tabled with my right hon. and hon. Friends. It fulfils the commitment given by the Government in our manifesto last year to conduct
	"a review . . . by a committee of both Houses"
	to
	"seek agreement on codifying the key conventions of the Lords".
	The focus of our debate is on the Joint Committee's terms of reference and its membership from the Commons, rather than the wider question of House of Lords reform, including the future composition of the upper House. However, to answer the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), our debate takes place in the context of the commitment by all three principal parties and some of the minority parties to look at the composition and the powers of the House of Lords. It was our judgment before the election—and it remains our judgment—that as the issue of the composition and thus the powers of the Lords were to be the subject of live debate in this Parliament it was essential that we establish a baseline by reaching a common understanding of the existing balance of powers between the Lords and the Commons.
	I am talking not about the way in which the Lords manages itself—that is a matter for their lordships and no one else—but about the extent to which the House of Lords seeks to check and balance the powers of the Commons. Both Houses have a legitimate interest in the matter and, ultimately, it is for the elected Chamber to make decisions. If there had not been any debate about that, if there had not been any argument in the country and if political parties had not sought to put the issue on the national agenda there would be no need for the Joint Committee. However, those issues arise periodically—they were live issues in the last Parliament—so there is cross-party determination to try to seek a consensus on the composition of the Lords. We therefore need prior agreement on powers, and we need a common understanding of the existing powers.
	I thank the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for the great compliment that he paid me when he spoke about the role of the Leader of the House. He dismissed the doctrine of the manifesto—he is entitled to his opinion—but he certainly wasted his time reading his party manifesto, because as soon as the ink was dry and the election was over, its author, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), announced that he did not agree with a word of it. That appeared to be his manifesto in his party's leadership campaign.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman is either being very na-ve or generous to a man who irons only the front of his shirts. Does he agree that the intervention of the Lord Chancellor was intended to be not constructive but diversionary?

David Heath: I was arguing for a diversity of views in Committee. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) wishes to continue our dialogue, I am happy to give way to him, but if he is satisfied with my response, perhaps he will be quiet and allow me to continue.

William Cash: I begin with a quotation from the introduction to "Erskine May", which is well worth considering:
	"At the very highest level, there is much in the observation that if the United Kingdom has in any sense a constitution and that constitution is capable of restraining an elected dictatorship, the standing orders and the practice of the two Houses, shaped over the centuries by changing political pressures, and since 1884 described in May's Treatise, are an important part of it."
	At the beginning of the introduction, with regard to codification, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) touched on, "Erskine May" states:
	"Those elements of parliamentary procedure which have been codified in standing orders or—more rarely—statute law tend to be relatively modern and easy to track."
	Those statutes include the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 and others, such as the Oaths Act 1978 and the Royal Assent Act 1967.
	There is another aspect of the elective dictatorship that has not been touched on, yet it is fundamental to the question of what those conventions, which is how they can be described, include—namely, the Whip system. In practice, the elective dictatorship comes about through the convention of the Whip system. In a debate on the reform of the House of Lords some years ago, I asked whether the Whip system had got out of control. It is because of that point that there is a more justifiable case for the House of Lords periodically to put its foot down. It is perfectly apparent that, because of the Whip system and Standing Orders, we end up not considering legislation properly in this House, which confers legitimacy on the House of Lords.
	Parliament consists of two Houses, which affects the consideration of legislation. It is extremely important to remember that the House of Lords is, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, part of the parliamentary process, although it has acquired different functions. The two Houses cannot be separated, although they have evolved in different ways over time—the beneficial intrusion of democracy in the mid-19th century made a fundamental difference.
	If there were to be a new House of Lords with a significant elected element, it would not be possible to apply the Salisbury-Addison convention—even if it is a convention—because the Lords would acquire legitimacy for its decisions on the basis that the voters had expressed their view. I wonder whether the reference to the Salisbury-Addison convention should be abandoned in the context of considering the practicality of codifying what have been described as the key conventions. I doubt whether those conventions are the key conventions, because I could mention many other conventions—for example, the convention of comity is an important aspect of the relationship between the two Houses.
	For those who are interested in what some would regard as a fairly abstruse subject, the issue of conventions has been at the heart of many of the biggest constitutional crises that this Parliament has experienced over the past several hundred years. That question arose in the context of the Canada Act 1982, with which I happened to be involved because I advised Quebec on that matter in a professional capacity. The ultimate decision taken by the Supreme Court of Canada turned on the application of conventions in this House, because under the British North America Act 1867 the lexis of the constitution of Canada was not in Canada, because it was resident here. Those considering the case had to consider the application of the Statute of Westminster, and in doing so were governed by the conventions of this House. The question of what are the key conventions between the two Houses is a matter of very great importance. I am not satisfied that the assertion that they are those in the motion is at all accurate.
	My next question concerns the meaning of "codification". The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome alluded to that a few moments ago. The Whip system has a direct relevance to the House of Lords. After all, in respect of comity and the practical application of relationships between the two Houses, we know, if we have been in the shadow Cabinet or on the Back Benches, that discussions take place between the Whips and the leaders' offices of both Houses to decide the extent to which, for example, the ping-pong between them is going to continue. That is governed by conventions, and it can be incredibly important. It is also governed by the conventional manner in which the Whip system and the usual channels operate, either within the House or between the two Houses.
	I am interested in how codification would apply in relation to Standing Orders if that becomes the basis on which decisions are taken and it is not just left to float off into the ether. According to the sources I have read, in 1866, when the great battle took place in this House over home rule, Lord Randolph Churchill and two or three others spent the entire latter part of the Session on the one question of whether the Speaker's rules should, by consensus and by a carve-up between the Front Benches, be transferred from the Speaker to the Executive. A very distinguished former Clerk of the House of Commons goes so far as to allege that when that was codified into Standing Orders, it reduced the power of the House of Commons to such a low point that until it was reversed there would never be the kind of authority that the House of Commons ought to have by virtue of its elective system. People refer to the elective dictatorship, but it is not that at all. It is a dictatorship by the Whip system enforced by various methods such as cajoling and various other things—sometimes a bit of a threat here or there. I have experienced some of that in my time over the years, and resisted and sometimes rejected it.
	We should be very careful about what "codification" is likely to mean. The attempt to have a discussion, which is embedded in the motion and the debate, about whether there is a practical way of progressing, has some sense. However, I am apprehensive about where it would be likely to lead if the consequence was, by the back door, to put a straitjacket on the way in which, for example, an elected House of Lords could operate, or to undermine the freedom of debate and the democratic basis on which this House operates.
	I can think of at least one matter that was most emphatically not in the governing party's manifesto—the European constitution. The question of whether there should or could be a referendum was determined by the Prime Minister's saying that it caused no fundamental change. The Leader of the House and I spent the best part of a year debating that. Ultimately, the Prime Minister decided that it meant fundamental change after all—perhaps to some extent because of my arguments—to primacy. We must be careful when we decide what affects the conventions because many of the most important matters that are discussed in the House do not appear in manifestos.
	Many of the most difficult issues that arise in the Chamber and Parliament as a whole depend on the flexibility that the conventions afford. The problem with other constitutional arrangements, even in the United States, is that they cannot move easily with the times because they operate on a fixed set of rules that have been codified. Our advantage is that we can be more organic and flexible and respond to the practical requirements of the time.
	I am dubious and concerned about the proposal. I appreciate that it states,
	"to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions"
	but the case for that is not made on the basis of the necessity of maintaining flexibility.

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will not because, although I love him to bits, I know that he has an unrivalled ability to keep the House for a long time, which does not necessarily lead to the approbation of his colleagues.
	I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was very effective in holding me to account when I was Home Secretary, which was good for me, although it did not always feel like that.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead asked whether the Committee could produce an interim report. My understanding is that it cannot make an interim report to the House without first coming back to the two Houses to change the 21 July deadline. It could then produce an interim report if it wanted to do so. We have debated the timetable and I hope that members of the Committee will be able to complete their work by the 21 July deadline, but if that is not possible the Chair of the Committee can come to see me and I shall do my best to respond positively to the Committee's requests. I cannot say more than that.
	The right hon. Lady's second point was about Lord Falconer's proposals for consensus. As the House knows, I have had responsibility for House of Lords reform and other easy matters, including party funding, only since last Friday, so Members will forgive me if I take a deep breath before looking at my noble Friend's proposals. I will take the opportunity to consult representatives of Opposition parties about what they feel to be the appropriate way forward before making decisions about how we progress the commitments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said that we needed a second Chamber that was neither a replica nor a rival. I agree, but the devil will be in finding a Chamber that complements the role of this place. The hon. Member for Cambridge suggested that it would not be a bad idea if the second Chamber were seen as a rival, but that would have serious problems for governance.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) used the word "concordat", which was probably right. Governance will work better, and always has worked better, when there is consensus about the balance about powers between each end. We must have that, whatever the composition and powers of the other place; otherwise, there really would be gridlock. On this occasion, it is for the Committee to consider whether it is possible to describe that concordat—that consensus—without turning it into the straitjacket of a Napoleonic code. If we get a draft recommendation that begins with the words "whereas" and "if", we know that the task is impossible.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) may be suspicious about many things, but I would not be suspicious about this one. We have a manifesto commitment. This is a very tricky but very important issue. We must take it stage by stage. Perhaps I should not have set the hare running on how to codify the issue. I was simply describing, for the sake of completeness, what form codification could take. Of course, I will consider any recommendation from the Committee with very great care. Subject to that, the idea of legislating for the balance of powers between the two Houses would probably be the worst option, rather than the best.
	I hope that I have responded to the points made by the hon. Member for Cambridge.
	As for the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I was about to say that he turned up like a bad penny, when I was dealing with Europe and followed me around on Europe. I finally ensured that the Government served up what he was demanding in respect of Europe—a referendum on the EU constitution—and no sooner was that over and we dealt with that, he turns up here. I wonder whether the Bruges group and all the other flat-earth societies to which he belongs on the issue of Europe had any idea whatsoever that he was, figuratively speaking, in bed with the French, with the Québecois. I also wonder how the devil William Cash & Co.—a very distinguished firm of lawyers—was instructed by the Québecois, rather than other perhaps more obvious firms; but perhaps for that, we can wait until the next debate. Meanwhile, I recommend the motion to the House.
	Question put—

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday next, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions).

Co-operation on asylum policy and practice

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Premier Aggregates Ltd

Mark Tami: Matthew Marsden, a two-year-old boy from Buckley, Flintshire, tragically drowned while on a family holiday in August 2004. He drowned after falling into a duck pond that was just 18 in deep at Greenacres holiday caravan park near Porthmadog. The coroner recorded a verdict of accidental death. He described the death as a tragic accident and said it was natural for youngsters to show interest in water. He did not back calls from safety campaigners to fill in ponds on public sites such at this.
	That was not the first incident at the caravan park. A risk assessment was carried out in September 2003, but only after a four-year-old boy was saved from drowning in the same pond. People should clearly be aware of the dangers of water, but we need to take the appropriate action. I am not advocating a ban on all water features, which are part of the attraction of a park or leisure centre, but they need to be safe. Lessons have to be learned and action taken. We all know that water holds a particular fascination for young children—particularly under the age of five. Whether the water is held in a garden pond, a rainwater butt, a paddling pool or a bucket, a young child will always tend to want to investigate.
	Between 1 January 1993 and December 2003, 342 children under the age of 15 drowned in small bodies of water, canals, lakes, rivers and swimming pools in the UK. That figure does not include those who drowned in the bath at home or at coastal locations such as the beach. The highest single number of fatalities occurred among those aged about two. At that stage, toddlers have increased mobility, but their stability and co-ordination are still undeveloped, so they tend not to be able to help themselves if they get into difficulties. Some 111 children under the age of five have drowned during the last decade. That is within the space of a few minutes of the supervising adult being distracted for any particular reason.
	We need to readdress what constitutes a water hazard or danger. As adults, we tend to think of deep ponds, lakes, rivers, swimming pools and even the sea, but the facts tell us that young children can drown in as little as 1 in or 2 in of water. Wherever water can collect is therefore a potential hazard or danger. As children do not learn the concept of danger until they are about four or five, the onus is therefore on us to take appropriate action.
	The Marsden family know that they cannot turn the clock back, but they do not want their tragic loss to be another headline in the papers, forgotten the next day. They want lessons to be learned from it and action to be taken so that no other parents suffer as they have suffered and continue to suffer. Many would find that approach difficult to follow, but it is their hope and desire that nobody else will go through what they have experienced.
	The coroner's view, in essence, is that nobody was to blame, but, ultimately, we are all responsible because we have done little to protect children from water, or, at best, minimise the risk. Accidents will always happen, but our job and duty must ultimately be to minimise that risk. As a parent, I know that it is nearly impossible for any parent to supervise a young child 100 per cent. of the time, but action can be taken to lessen the risks, particularly in the case of water.
	Let me go into a bit of detail. There is no specific legislation regarding pond safety of this type. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents provides safety advice about ponds in schools, which are common-sense guidelines on how to supervise children near and around water and which apply to parents, teachers and guardians. Again, we are presuming that particularly young children have that common sense in the first place. But what of legislation for water safety? The Health and Safety Commission, which deals with the workplace environment, is the only relevant body on this issue. Its regulations are enforced by either the Health and Safety Executive, or local authorities, depending on the type of workplace. Although the Health and Safety Executive has not produced specific legislation or guidance on ponds in public places, the following legislation applies to leisure parks.
	Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974 places requirements on employers with regard to members of the public using workplace facilities. The section only sets down a goal—it is not specific. Subsection (1) states:
	"It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."
	Likewise, subsection (2) covers the same area with respect to self-employed persons. Subsection (3) states:
	"In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person, in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking . . . as might affect their health or safety."
	Further to that, an employer or self-employed person has a legal duty to complete a risk assessment. Risk assessments are a legal requirement under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Regulation 3 stipulates:
	"Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of . . . (a) the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and . . . (b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking".
	The approved code of practice goes on to state:
	"This regulation requires all employers and self-employed people to assess the risks to workers and any others who may be affected by their work or business. This will enable them to identify the measures they need to take to comply with health and safety law. All employers should carry out a systematic general examination of the effect of their undertaking, their work activities and the condition of the premises. Those who employ five or more employees should record the significant findings of that risk assessment.
	A risk assessment is carried out to identify the risks to health and safety to any person arising out of, or in connection with, work or the conduct of their undertaking. It should identify how the risks arise and how they impact on those affected. This information is needed to make decisions on how to manage those risks so that the decisions are made in an informed, rational and structured manner, and the action taken is proportionate.
	A risk assessment should usually involve identifying the hazards present in any working environment or arising out of commercial activities and work activities, and evaluating the extent of the risks involved, taking into account existing precautions and their effectiveness. In this approved code of practice . . . (a) a hazard is something with the potential to cause harm (this can include articles, substances, plant or machines, methods of work, the working environment and other aspects of work organisation) . . . (b) a risk is the likelihood of potential harm from that hazard being realised. The extent of the risk will depend on . . . the likelihood of that harm occurring; . . . the potential severity of that harm, i.e. of any resultant injury or adverse health effect; and . . . the population which might be affected by the hazard, i.e. the number of people who might be exposed."
	I also have guidelines from another source: "Reservoirs and HSW Act: Inspections Policy". It relates specifically to reservoirs, but the control measures cited may be of some use. With regard to public safety, it says that a risk assessment is required to take into account high-risk areas and the likely actions of persons using a reservoir. It says that fencing or natural barriers may be needed to discourage people from approaching deep water. It says that fishing platforms may be provided to direct anglers away from areas where they could slip into the water and suggests considering the provision of rescue aids within the risk assessment. For example, if the reservoir is visited only by water company employees, they should take rescue aids such as throw-lines to the site.
	Where members of the public regularly gain access to these sites, rescue aids must be located at suitable points. Warning signs should be placed at suitable locations—for example, entry pathways and high-risk areas.
	Do we think that existing legislation is good enough for public amenities? Should there be more specific regulation for public premises? Health and Safety Executive legislation is aimed more at the protection of employees and may be inadequate for public safety. Good employers understand the dangers that are present on their premises and enforce risk assessments, but in understanding the dangers of water the public are possibly overlooked by others. After all, employees are more likely to be aware of the dangers than members of the public.
	For instance, the pond at the caravan park where the Marsdens had their tragic accident had conducted a risk assessment only after an earlier incident at the same pond. We need also to consider that caravan parks tend to attract families with young children. Why does the legislation that governs them not take that fact into consideration? If there were a swimming pool on the site, we would expect at least some safety procedures to be in place. We recognise a pool to be a hazard although I accept that that is another area where the law is vague. That surprises me. It is another area where I would like to see legislation tightened.
	We do not consider that the same requirements are necessary for ponds despite the fact that they could pose the same threat to visitors, particularly the young. In the majority of cases, I would like to see ponds filled in. If they are not, there should be a requirement to ensure that fences are put in place to prevent accidents. In the Marsden case, the pond did have a small fence, but it was not high enough and therefore did not have any effect. If anything, it could be argued that it had a negative effect. Safety can definitely be improved by the provision of adequate fencing. This is not a measure that would place huge expense on park owners, but it may well save lives.
	If we have ponds in our gardens, we may well need to take similar measures, if we believe that they could be accessed by children. We should not lose sight of the fact that many deaths have occurred in just such ponds.
	I would like to see a requirement on park owners to alert all guests to water hazards or any other hazards that are present on the site. Specific water legislation to cover amenities of this sort, such as a caravan park, would make it clear to all concerned that there is a need to take proportionate action to reduce the risk of open water on their premises. Current legislation does not do this, and I believe that it would help all concerned—operators and the public—in diminishing the risk posed by water, especially to young children, if such legislation were in place.
	There is another issue that has an effect on water safety. In carrying out research on this subject, I found it difficult to ascertain who exactly had responsibility for water safety. The water safety forum provided a framework for action, but I found it confusing when trying to ascertain who dealt with what aspect of water safety. The WSF does not deal with such inquiries.
	When pursuing my inquiries on behalf of the Marsdens, I had delays in responses to letters as they were pushed from one department to another. Responsibilities for inland water are spread across several Government Departments and agencies. It was difficult for me to ascertain whether the incident was dealt with by the local authority, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as it was then, or the Health and Safety Executive, with the Department for Work and Pensions being the enforcing authority. That can lead to further anguish for bereaved parents.
	We need to increase the public awareness programme into water safety for young children. Most parents are aware of all the dangers posed to children, but perhaps the message about water is not pushed hard enough. We instil in our children the dangers posed by traffic on our roads. We tell them about the dangers of getting lost and those of wandering off. Perhaps we face these dangers every day. More emphasis should be given to the dangers of water, particularly in schools.
	We all have a responsibility for children's safety. While the onus is on parents and guardians to mind children and teach them the dangers of water, reforms could be introduced to reduce the chances of death by drowning in certain circumstances. New regulations on water safety in public places would concentrate the owner's mind, and encourage them to carry out risk assessments and take appropriate action. A central Government contact point to deal with all water safety issues would enable inquiries for information to be dealt with quickly and effectively. A co-ordinated national education campaign aimed at parents and guardians could advise them of the dangers to children of water and of their responsibilities.
	In conclusion, I accept that dangers to our children will always exist, but we must do something about water danger. The introduction of sensible legislation and regulation would clearly help, and we need more common sense in this area. The Marsden family have suffered a tragic loss, and they rightly hope and desire that no other family should suffer in such a manner.